The colors didn’t come out right and they are just painted to country’s color for now. They stand on a token so you can see them stand out in a group. Allow 1 general per territory only and there value = If general is worth a 10 then 10 pieces get a +1 on attack or defend. If two generals meet in combat they have to fight each other. If your game doesn’t have alot of pieces then you adjust your values of generals lower. The US and Japan have generals for navy too. Ships get a +1 on attack or defend.
Probably be to expensive for HBG to make these general pieces do to not making alot of them. But a token would work with a pic of general and a value and bottom side.
I use these because its simple piece with a few rules.
SS those generals SUCK. I bought them too. The best quality is Rocco ww2 Military leaders ( Check HBG site if they still have them). Just have them painted and you glue them to roundels ( they will stick very well don’t worry).
Ha Those are the ones you showed me to buy awhile ago. :-D
Thanks I’ll check it out.
Ya right….generals are poor.
SS where didn’t found those figures?
Don’t remember where I got them. Have receipt but can’t find it. IL you remember where you told me to get them?
Crus, you told me along time ago where to get some generals. You still got site of the place? Is it C in C?
This thread is very interesting. I think a great General would add a great token to the game. A great General would function like a queen on a chessboard. One of the most important pieces. I think this should be echoed in AA. The real question is how would they be generated? I think an IPC purchase is too easy. IN real life, Great Generals cannot be bought. Great Generals rise up by proving themselves in battle. I think this should be reflected in AA.
If it were me, I would have the possibility of a Great General emerging after an epic battle. I would define an epic battle as involving many units. The attacker might receive a great general if he wins a battle beating a certain number of defenders. On the flip side, I would allow a defending player a great general roll if he beat back a certain number of attackers in a battle.
After the battle, the player would roll a die to see if he earned a GG.
Welcome Muscleape.
By the time you get a General, half the battles are over with. Having Generals at start of game will give you some advantage when the big battles come. Each country should start with a certain amount of Generals.
SS,
You are right it might take a while for a GG to emerge. Personally, I think waiting for a GG to emerge after an epic battle adds some realism to the game. I also think it adds excitement because one never knows for sure when a GG will emerge.
I also think a GG should be a limited to leading a certain type of unit. I think the player should choose. He could only choose based on the units that he used and survived in the battle. For example, Crazy Ivan attacked with 3 Inf and a bomber. He wins the battle but lost all three infantry. He rolls and gets a GG. The GG he gets would be attached to his bomber from now on and only providing a bonus to bombers on the same territory as the GG. Had an infantry survived with the bomber then he would have a choice of attaching the GG to the infantry or the bomber.
Honestly, I have no clue what the die rolls should be.
In the thread I linked previously, I talk about how I generate them in my house rules. I have a list of conditions that must be met, for instance, if a territory is captured that contains a IC or naval or air base, you would roll to create an officer of a certain rank.
I am intrigued about the idea to have a Commander unit, a tiny plastic Rommel on the map, chancing the outcome of a battle. I know it has been tried in A&A lookalike games like http://ww2wargame.com/ and http://thewargame.com/ and many more.
Many of the Commander house rules are far to complex, and don’t fit the KISS level that Axis & Allies represent in game terms. The best suggestion I have seen so far, is a Commander that re roll misses. Germany attack Moscow with a huge stack of 30 infantry, 10 artillery, 8 tanks and 2 bombers, all under command of a plastic Rommel. He roll 20 hits and 30 misses, so the Rommel figure must re roll the 30 misses, and get 5 more hits. Of course Rommel must re roll in every round of combat. The benefit of this simple system is a faster combat resolving. Of course we must assume that the defenders of Moscow are lead by Zhukov, so this battle is fair. Both sides get re rolls, as long they got a Commander.
I am not sure if a Commander unit can be purchased for a certain cost, and what should that cost be ?, or is something you get for free if you win a battle, in which case the map will soon be covered with leaders, or should each nation get a set number of leaders, like the WiF hex and counter game.
I think a good idea will be if Germany start with like 4 Generals, and Sovjet start with 1 leader. After all, the military education of officers in Germany was the cutting edge in the world. They had more skilled leaders than the rest of the world combined. And in Sovjet had Stalin purged and killed more than half of the officers in the Red Army just before WWII started, and only Zhukov survived of the skilled leaders, because he worked in the Sovjet Far East at the time of the purges, far away from Moscow and Stalin. There are no doubt that Russia did some poor dice rolling in the attack on Eastern Poland, Finland and the Baltic states, and more poor dice rolling when they got attacked by Germany. Actually, in the Red Army of 1939, the General was not in charge, but had to listen to the political commie commissar and the union leader of the privates, and that explains a lot of the poor effort and no re rolling of dice early in the war in the Europe theater. Meanwhile, general Zhukov did beat the Japanese in the battle of Khalkin gol in Manchuria 1939, so obviously there was a lot of re rolling there
For balancing, I suggest the combined total of leader disbursement must be equal among the Axis and Allies players.
Germany start with 4 leaders, Japan 1, Sovjet with 1, UK 2 and USA 2, since this will model the real world most historically correct.
Maybe they can play the game with that, because if they get more generals every turn, the game will no longer be A&A but the Commanders game
Oh, and attached are pics of the leaders from the Struggle, the Wargame, and a plastic Rommel that I want HBG to make me
I was only allowed to post 2 pics so Rommel comes here
I think a simple requirement like:
“A commander is created if a territory is seized which contains a victory city or a major industrial complex.”
might be appropriate. This sort of rewards the player for a major accomplishment, and the number of generals created will be a reasonable number.
ossel, nice idea, but I will need to playtest it before I have any comments.
Guys,
––I’m just ‘marking’ this interesting subject until I can read it more thotoughly when I have some time.
“Tall Paul”
“A commander is created if a territory is seized which contains a victory city or a major industrial complex.”
I guess one of the FAQs will be if you get one more general for every time you trade France, in the ex. US liberate France this turn, Germany retake it next turn, and so on and so forth etc.
“A commander is created if a territory is seized which contains a victory city or a major industrial complex.”
I guess one of the FAQs will be if you get one more general for every time you trade France, in the ex. US liberate France this turn, Germany retake it next turn, and so on and so forth etc.
My system is definitely not the kind of KISS rule that you’re looking for, but I would say a simplified form of what I came up with is:
“A general may not be created (promoted?) from a battle where an existing general influenced the rolls.”
So basically, if there is a general already there, you can’t make a new one.
Why don’t we just address the generals in the file of the first post? They offer a good starting point…
Try to figure out what they mean. What is S and SS on the chits? there is also T and A… what does this mean?
You should somehow find out where you got them - how did they get on your hard drive?
I like the idea of leaders but would rather use actual sculpts as the rest of the game does, not cardboard printouts. And I would only allow one per country for a little flavor and not to take over the game.
They were made by some guy in Italy. I had the file like forever on my harddrive.
The concept they made is great, need to confirm in Italian what S, SS, A, T means on the chits.
I think each player should get one general or pay for each one and pick randomly.
Cant have all these on the board together, changes game too much
Here are some nice models that could be used for adding generals to AA games.
Go to shapeways.com/product/LKWVTVBJC/global-set?optionId=55887495
Here’s what you get with the set:
Set of 37 pieces representing the generals and admirals for each army in WWII. Scaled to be compatible with Axis & Allies board game. Includes the following pieces, broken down by army:
United States: 1 General Patton, 1 General MacArthur, 1 Admiral Halsey, 2 US Generals (Eisenhower model), 2 admirals in dress blues, 1 admiral in dress whites.
United Kingdom: 2 UK Generals (Montgomery model), 1 generic general (Eisenhower model), 2 admirals in dress whites, 1 admiral in dress blues.
Soviet Union: 2 Soviet generals, 2 Soviet generals with winter greatcoat, 1 Soviet general with winter greatcoat and fur hat, 1 admiral in dress blues.
France: 2 French generals, 1 admiral in dress blues.
China: 1 general (Japanese general model)
Germany: 2 German generals, 3 German generals with winter greatcoat, 1 admiral in dress blues.
Italy: 1 Italian general, 1 admiral in dress whites.
Japan: 2 Japanese admirals, 3 Japanese generals.
